European tourism, transport and environment

Transcription

1 European tourism, transport and environment Second draft deliverable 1 for the DG-ENTR MusTT project NHTV Centre for Sustainable Tourism and Transport Final draft Breda, Paul Peeters Ton van Egmond Nico Visser (Reviewed by Erwin Ketelaar) This report is the final draft report by CSTT for the DG-ENTR project MuSST.

2 Table of contents Table of contents Objectives and status of this deliverable Methodological issues Definitions Impact analysis Data issues Data processing and matching method European tourism Europe as destination (domestic and inbound tourism) Europeans as tourists Economy of tourism Special issues: cruises and residential tourism Tourism transport Introduction OD-transport Local transport Special issues: seasonality, ferries, coaches and touring 37 5 Environmental impacts Introduction Emissions Safety Infrastructure impacts Noise and nuisance Special issues: cruises, ferries and coaches External costs Mechanisms and trends Mechanisms

3 6.2 Trends Tourist behaviour Typology of tourist behaviour Beach holidays Winter sports City trips Family Holidays Nature tourism Adventure holidays Cruise tourism Decision-making Information systems for consumers Opportunities for change Conclusions Research Recommendations...79 References

4 1 Objectives and status of this deliverable The general objective of the Multi-stakeholder European Targeted Action for Sustainable Tourism & Transport is to increase the competitiveness and sustainable development of European Tourism and its enterprises. The specific objectives for the Multi-stakeholder European Targeted Action for Sustainable Tourism & Transport are: - uncoupling growth of tourism and of transport related environmental degradation; - encourage innovative practices that enhance sustainable production and consumption patterns. The MuSTT projects main objective is to find out if such a Multi-stakeholder Action is feasible and to prepare its forming and working. In this preparatory phase the main objective is to give a preliminary view on current European tourism, to find data and modelling issues to be solved and to show a way to do so. In this report we will give the data and information gathered based on definitions of European tourism, current European tourist production and consumption patterns, and on current European tourist transport flows and their environmental social and economic impacts. These data will be gathered in collaboration with consortium partners and stakeholders, but will also be used to clarify the issues at stake to the stakeholders and the EC. MusTT aims to produce the following deliverables: Deliverable 1. Subject matter review Deliverable 2. Stakeholder engagement Deliverable 3. Preparation of defined tourism transport maps Deliverable 4. Development of a Sustainability Framework Deliverable 5. Initial design of a consumer information system Deliverable 6. Assessment of the feasibility and sustainability of Good Practices This report, deliverable 1, gives a preliminary analysis of the subject matter and state of the art on sustainable tourism and transport. The CSTT report treats the following subjects: - Definitions - General overview of European tourism and transport (including mechanisms and some trends) - Environmental impacts of tourism transport - Tourist behaviour The report is meant as a background report to the problem of tourism transport and environment. The current status of the report is final draft. Compared to the former published version 08 of the main change is that the databases of tourism (WTO) and transport (TEN-STAC) have been integrated into the MuSTT model and results and observations have been based on the analysis with this model as far as appropriate. Further all remarks and observations received on the version 08 and (03) have been processed. Also a section has been added on the subject of seasonality. This position paper is further based on a literature and internet survey and the experience of the researchers of the CSTT. 4

5 2 Methodological issues Key findings: - Tourism includes all trips with at least one night, but less than one year for leisure and holiday, business and visits to friends and relatives. - MusTT assesses the tourism within, from and to the EU-plus countries including all current (post June 2004) EU member states plus Norway, Switzerland, Bulgaria and Romania (the plus countries) - Sustainable tourism is tourism development that meets the needs of the present tourists and tourism sector without compromising the ability of future generations of tourists and of the tourism sector to meet their needs. - Impacts can only be described using data on both volume and the specific impact per unit of volume and considering the total impact of the subject on study compared to the total for tourism transport. - Tourism transport data will have to be constructed from both transport (TEN-STAC) and tourism (WTO) data. 2.1 Definitions Tourism definitions The definition of tourism accepted by international tourism organisations gives some difficulties as it does not correspond with the definitions for transport motives normally used within the transport sector. The international definition of tourism as given by the World Tourism Organisation and United Nations (UN, 2001) includes all travel purposes, as tourists are all visitors staying between one night and one year outside their usual environment and are not working for a company based at the destination. The remainder is defined as sameday visitor. Transport statistics normally define the tourism motive as leisure related only. Within the MusTT project the definition for tourism used is: Tourism comprises the activities of persons travelling to and staying in places outside their usual environment for not more than one consecutive year for leisure, business and other purposes not related to the exercise of an activity remunerated from within the place visited (source: WTO, 2002). Tourism is different from travel. In order for tourism to happen, there must be a displacement: an individual has to travel, using any type of means of transportation (he might even travel on foot: nowadays, it is often the case for poorer societies, and happens even in more developed ones, and concerns pilgrims, hikers ). But all travel is not tourism. Three criteria are used simultaneously in order to characterise a trip as belonging to tourism. The displacement must be such that: - It involves a displacement outside the usual environment: this term is of utmost importance and will be discussed later on; - The travel must occur for any purpose different from being remunerated from within the place visited: the previous limits, where tourism was restricted to recreation and visiting family and friends are now expanded to include a vast array of purposes; - Only a maximal duration is mentioned, not a minimal. Tourism displacement can be with or without an overnight stay. The description of European tourism will be focused at the former 15 member states, the 10 new members states, two of the applicant countries (Bulgaria and Romania) plus Norway and 5

6 Switzerland. These last two have been added as they play a central role in the European tourism and transport sector and because they may deliver some interesting good practices. Also it will make the analysis more complete. Of course all data will be generated separately for the member states, the new member states, and the applicant countries plus Norway and Switzerland. At this first stage of the study it is proposed to look at all relevant parts of European tourism meaning that the analysis will be given for both destinations (inbound) and countries of origin (outbound). Also a division between domestic, intra-european and intercontinental tourism (inbound and outbound tourists from/to other regions in the world) will be made. This is based on the following assumptions and hypotheses: - the country of origin perspective is needed to assess the possibilities for changes in European tourist behaviour; - the country of destination perspective is required to assess the best practices for the tourism industry; - domestic tourism raises a high share of revenues, but has low adverse environmental or social impacts; - both inbound and outbound intercontinental tourism have large impacts on climate change and biodiversity, but a relatively low economic impact; - the transportation of non-europeans within Europe will be difficult to assess due to systematic gaps in national transport data. The following definitions will be used: - Tourists: are all visitors staying between one night and one year outside their usual environment. - EU10: all new accession countries and members from June EU15: all member states of the European Union before June of EU25: EU15 plus the 10 New Member States since June EU-plus: EU25 plus Bulgaria, Romania, Norway and Switzerland. - EU10 tourism: all tourism between, within, to and from the EU10 countries. - EU15 tourism: all tourism between, within, to and from the EU15 countries. - EU25 tourism: all tourism between, within, to and from the EU25 countries. - EU-plus tourism: EU tourism plus including the tourism from Bulgaria, Romania, Switzerland and Norway. - ICA: intercontinental tourism. - Inbound ICA tourism: refers to visitors to Europe from other continents. - Outbound ICA tourism: European citizens are travelling as tourist to destinations on other continents. - EUxx tourism refers to international and domestic tourists within the EU15/EU25 or EU-plus (whatever is appropriate within the context of the data). - Domestic tourism refers to tourists staying within their own country. - Trip: a one way travel from origin to destination. - Journey is a return travel. The full list of countries and regions included in the study is given in Table 2-1. Sustainable development The term sustainable development finds its roots in the Brundtland 1987 report Our common future. It defines sustainable development as: development that meets the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs. 6

7 The Institute for Policy Studies reports the following definitions for sustainable tourism based on the general Brundtland definition (Honey and Rome, 2001): according to the World Tourism Organisation, envisaged as leading to management of all resources in such a way that economic, social and aesthetic needs can be fulfilled with maintaining cultural integrity, essential ecological processes, biological diversity, and life support systems (WTO and UNEP, 2002). According to Agenda 21 for the Travel & Tourism Industry: Sustainable Tourism development meets the needs of present tourists and host regions while protecting and enhancing opportunities for the future. It is envisaged as leading to management of all resources in such a way that economic, social and aesthetic needs can be fulfilled while maintaining cultural integrity, essential ecological processes, biological diversity and life support systems (European Tourism Forum 2002, 2002). It is interesting to see the inter-generation part of the general definition has been removed from these definitions or has been reduced to maintaining essential ecological processes and enhancing opportunities for the future. Sustainable development is lately often operationalised with the principle of the three p s: planet, people and profit. This means a sustainable development should fulfil the requirements for all three p s. Mowforth and Munt have defined sustainable tourism based on these three elements, but adding a cultural element (Mowforth and Munt, 2003). The ecological sustainability (planet) is often based on carrying capacity of the destination. Transportation to the destination is left out of the definition. This is a common phenomenon in sustainable tourism publications (see for example Cohen, 1978; Theuns, 2001; APAT, 2002; Tour Operators Initiative, 2002; UNEP, 2002). Several recent papers and articles show that transport between the place of residence and the tourism destination dominates the environmental effects of tourism (Gössling, 2002; OECD Working Party on National Environmental Policy, 2002; Becken, Simmons et al., 2003; Ceron and Dubois, 2003b; Peeters, 2003a). This of course is the most important reason to focus on transport within the MusTT project. For social sustainability (people) Mowforth and Munt focus on the aspect of tourism developments in remote areas to create a sharper division between those who benefit from it and those who take the inconvenience or are even marginalized by it. To be cultural sustainable it is required societies are able to continue functioning in social harmony despite the effects of changes brought about by a new input such a tourists. In fact this is generally seen as part of the people P of sustainable development. Others may add to this the working circumstances in the tourism sector and the share of the revenues left at the destination and taken away with the foreign tourism and transport companies (equal sharing of wealth). Economic sustainability (profit) is of great importance, as without it, no tourism enterprises will survive. However, enterprises surviving economically, but without consideration for environmental and/or social/cultural impacts cannot be called sustainable. Or to put it in another way: where enterprises, in the first place might go bankrupt due to financial losses, within sustainable development social and environmental reasons for bankruptcy are added. In a positive way: new enterprises will have to proof in advance not only their economic viability, but also their environmental and social viability. To reach sustainable development the OECD has developed four criteria for the planet part of sustainable development (OECD, 2001): I. Regeneration: renewable resources are used without exceeding their long-term rates of natural regeneration. 7

8 II. III. IV. Substitutability: the use of non-renewable resources shall be limited to levels, which can be offset by substitution by renewable resources or other forms of capital. Assimilation: releases and emissions to the environment shall not exceed its assimilative capacity; persistent and/or bio-accumulative substances shall not be emitted. Avoiding irreversibility: irreversible adverse effects of human activities on ecosystems and on bio-geo-chemical and hydrological cycles shall be avoided. For tourism transport this means it will at least in the future - have to be powered by renewable energy, built by renewable resources and avoiding creating waste or disrupting natural flows including those of animals and humans by its infrastructure and space use. As the WTO/Agenda 21 definition is the current standard within the tourism sector, this definition will be used within the MusTT project: Sustainable Tourism development meets the needs of present tourists and host regions while protecting and enhancing opportunities for the future. It is envisaged as leading to management of all resources in such a way that economic, social and aesthetic needs can be fulfilled while maintaining cultural integrity, essential ecological processes, biological diversity and life support systems. Sustainable tourism can only be realised by way of the sustainable development process. Principally this requires (ECOTRANS, 2002): - The preservation of the natural and cultural landscape of the tourist destination and region, whilst simultaneously ensuring the greening of the products and services that deliver the visitor experience. - The whole process is implemented by a partnership of government, private and civil stakeholders and is guided by a sustainability monitoring and indicator system that provides transparent information on social, environmental and economic interaction for improved policy-making and decision-taking by all stakeholders. - The process is initiated at the destination level by a benchmarking exercise that catalogues the socio-economic and environmental resources of the area in question, and measures the implementation of institutional processes that foster the sustainable development of that area. - These processes and their effect on the destination landscape are then measured by performance indicators, which provide feedback for further policy intervention. To make sustainable development measurable a Sustainability Impact Assessment (SIA) has been developed (see Deliverable 4 of the MusTT project). Based on the preferred SIA methods it is necessary to set targets and/or limits for tourism and transport products. Without such targets or limits it is difficult to judge the sustainability of a product. When tourism products should be tagged with for example a colour code (red-orange-green) and if one of the parameters used is the ecological footprint, it should be made clear for which footprints which colour is applicable. Limits might be set to for example: - total trip footprint - footprint per tourist night - footprint per Euro expenditure - footprint per Euro expenditure within the destination - footprint per job 8

9 In this way not only planet is defined by the footprint, but also measures of people (like number of jobs or expenditure within the destination) and profit (footprint per total expenditure) are linked into one evaluation system. Transport By definition tourism is impossible without transportation. At least the tourist has to be transported from his or her place of residence to the destination of holiday, leisure, business or friends/relatives. But also during the stay on the destination, the tourist often will travel within the region. Two kinds of transport are distinguished: - OD-Transport refers to transport between the place of domicile of the tourist and the tourist destination (including all transport inside and outside the EU-plus, including transfers from home and the tourist accommodations to airports, harbours or railway stations). - Local transport refers to transport at destinations between arrival and departure for transfers, excursions, activities et cetera. This will be all leisure and business related local transport by non-residents. OD-transport is generally long distance transport between the normal residence of the tourist and the temporary residence at the destination. This kind of transport is generally made only at the beginning and at the end of the trip. Local transport comprises the transport for daily living at the destination (i.e. shopping) and transport for excursions and other forms of leisure during the stay. OD-Transport modes distinguished within the MusTT database will be: - road (car, coach and ferries) - rail - air Apart from calculations of the above transport modes, we will show estimates of the amounts and impacts of transport by coach and ferries. Additionally, for impacts assessment, assumptions will have to be made on the shares of coaches, campers and caravans within the mode car, for high speed within the mode rail and for long haul (>2000 km) within air. This is important because the environmental performance of these categories differs significantly. Overall European local transport for tourism will not be handled quantitatively, due to a general lack of data on transport by non-residents. Destinations Within the European Community the international boundaries determinate also the boundaries between tourism destinations, regardless the purpose of the tourist visit (leisure, visiting friends and relatives or business). However, based on destination characteristics some multinational regions may be defined like the Alps, the southern Atlantic coasts, the western and eastern Mediterranean coasts, Scandinavia, the British Isles and Ireland and several regions within the eastern European countries. As most of these regions are covered by more countries, the desaggregation to the EU-plus country level will generally give enough information for MusTT. A problem here is the failure within WTO data to distinguish between Spain s mainland tourism destinations and the Canary Islands, because the transport characteristics of the latter differ very significantly from the first one. Most tourism statistics of the World Tourism Organisation (WTO) are based on international tourism flows. Therefore destinations are defined as countries. For Europe this is no problem as there are many not too large countries within the area. For large countries like China or the United States, the number of international tourists has less meaning. As tourism is defined as all visitors regardless their motives for travelling, the tourist distribution will not only correspond with the leisure destination hot-spots like Mediterranean coasts or the Alps, but also with important economic centres (business) and large populations areas (visiting friend/family and city trips). This makes it less important for most analysis to distinguish 9

10 within countries the most important tourism areas. Therefore only for six countries complementary analysis may be given in future analysis. Table 2-1 gives a list of countries belonging to the EU-plus tourism region as defined within MusTT in 2.1. abbreviation Country EU10 EU15 EU25 EU-plus AT Austria * * * BE Belgium * * * DE Germany * * * DK Denmark * * * ES Spain * * * FI Finland * * * FR France * * * GR Greece * * * IE Ireland * * * IT Italy * * * LU Luxembourg * * * NL Netherlands * * * PT Portugal * * * SE Sweden * * * UK United Kingdom * * * CY Cyprus * * * CZ Czech Republic * * * EE Estonia * * * HU Hungary * * * LT Lithuania * * * LV Latvia * * * MT Malta * * * PL Poland * * * SI Slovenia * * * SK Slovak Republic * * * BG Bulgaria * CH Switzerland * NO Norway * RO Romania * Table 2-1: Countries of the EU-plus zone defined within MusTT (* means member of the specified EUnn group of countries. The destinations/origins outside EU-plus to be distinguished are: - Other European countries (all European countries except those mentioned in Table 2-1; so including countries like the Russian Federation, Ukraine, Turkmenistan and Uzbekistan). - Middle East - US/Canada - Oceania - Japan - North Africa - Other Africa (specifically east and south) - Other America s - China - Other East Asia/Pacific 10

11 These world-regions will have to be distinguished as the distances to these destinations cover a wide range, which will have a large influence on the environment impacts. For inbound tourism to all destination countries these data are readily available from WTO. For outbound tourism this is much more difficult. Only for the most important countries of origin detailed data are easily accessible. Within this preliminary investigation of the MuSTT project only the Americas, Americas, Asia and Pacific, Africa and the Middle East have been distinguished. Other definitions - LOS: Length of stay of a tourist (time between departure from the normal residence until return to this place). - PM: Particle matter: emissions of soot to the air. - TEN-STAC: Scenarios, Traffic Forecasts and Analysis of Corridors on the Trans- European Transport Network - TTU matrix: The Tourism and Transport Uncoupling matrix is a four cell table giving a division between markets with high/low relative environmental impact and high/low total revenue (or value added). - VFR: tourism for visiting friends and relatives. - WTO: World Tourism Organisation, Madrid. 2.2 Impact analysis General method Impact analysis is based on data for the volume of the activity or product or sector under consideration and its specific characteristics. Only by combining both it is possible to pass statements of the form activity X has the same impact on human health as activity Y. If for example the volume of activity X is one-tenth of that of Y, still its impact may be larger than for Y, when the relative impact per unit activity of X is more than ten times that of Y. Based on volume alone the first statement would be that X has a smaller impact and based on relative performance it would be that X has a much larger impact as Y. The total impact of an activity may be evaluated with the following general equation: I e V m m m In this form I e is the total impact of all activities, V m the volume of activity m and m the specific impact (the impact factor ) per unit of activity m. This equation may be used for all kinds of impact assessments like emissions of carbon dioxide, noise, ecological footprints - and for all levels of activities as world-wide, regional, sect oral, a single enterprise or a specific product. For the MusTT project OD-transport and local transport for tourism are the main activities to be assessed. This means the desaggregated tourism transport volume is required. As most impacts, but not all of them, are vehicle kilometre related, the transport volume is not only needed in distances covered, but also expressed in number of trips. Vehicle kilometres related are for example energy consumption and most emissions to the air, numbers of trip related are aircraft noise and parking space use. 2.3 Data issues The differences between definitions within the transport and the tourism sectors may be one of the reasons no in-depth analysis of tourism transport is yet available. The first problem arises with the definition of tourism. Within transport statistics and data the tourism 11

12 purpose for travel is interpreted as the leisure kind of tourism (holidays and short breaks for leisure). But in most tourism sector data sets tourism is defined including business trips and visiting friends and family with at least one night outside the normal domicile. Further tourism statistics give no data on distances travelled per mode of transport. On the other hand, transport statistics normally give no details on the length of stay of a trip (the time between outbound and return trip). The two detailed data sets available for MusTT show the same problem. Detailed transport data will be used from the IWW TEN-STAC model 1 and tourism flows will be derived from WTO (World Tourism Organisation) databases. However, these have incompatible compatible tourism definitions: IWW defines the travel motive holiday as leisure related trips with at least two nights, where WTO defines tourism as all trips for travels with at least one night and not more than one year. This includes business travels. IWW distinguishes also the travel motive business, but this includes also all same-day returns, which do not fall within the WTO definition of tourism. On the other hand, IWW data are interregional on the NUTS-2 level, which means only longer distance travel is included. This makes it likely most business trips will be tourism related. The motive visiting friends and relatives is part of the travel purpose private travel in TEN-STAC, so includes not only same-day visits, but also commuting, shopping, et cetera. Two important parameters are missing within WTO data the number of kilometres travelled and data on domestic tourism (tourists staying in their own country). Table 2-2 gives an overview of data covered by the two databases. TEN-STAC (IWW) WTO NR. of nights for tourism >2 nights, >1 night, <1 year Leisure related Defined as holiday ; >2 nights Part of tourism Visiting Friends and Relatives (VFR) Part of motive private. Part of tourism Business Business inter-regional at NUTS2 level Part of tourism including same day visits. Number of OD trips Yes Yes Transport mode Yes (road, rail, air) No Transport kilometres Yes (road, rail, air) No Travel direction (distinction between No Yes origin and destination) Canary Isles Yes No Malta and Cyprys No Yes Table 2-2: Overview of data and definitions used in the two main databases for MusTT. As the sum of IWW holiday and IWW business have the most in common with the WTO definition of tourism, we have analysed the differences in the results for international tourism for the EU15 states. Figure 2-1 shows clearly IWW estimates are in most cases lower as those from WTO. 1 TEN-STAC is TEN-STAC Scenarios, Traffic Forecasts and Analysis of Corridors on the Trans-European Transport Network 12

13 IWW/WTO, number of trips EU_15 81 UK 69 SE 110 PT 74 NL 72 Index (WTO=100) LU IT IE GR FR FI ES 75 DK 170 DE 83 BE 92 AT Figure 2-1: Comparing IWW TEN-STAC and WTO data on international tourism travel for the EU15 states (data for WTO: 2001; IWW: 2000). On average IWW generates 81% of WTO number of trips. IWW is much too high for Luxembourg, Ireland, Denmark and Austria. The picture is based on the average of both inbound and outbound tourism from the WTO data, as IWW does not make a distinction (transport is in equilibrium on every relation) as is normal practice for transport models. The WTO data give the numbers of inbound and outbound tourists, which are normally not equal. Large discrepancies are found for UK, Luxembourg, Ireland, France, Denmark and Austria. For these countries an educated guess correction on WTO data may be required. The WTO data for France for example contain a large number of one night visits of people travelling by car from Northern Europe to Spain or Portugal. The high level for Luxembourg may be caused by the fact that Luxembourg is a very small country, with rather many same-day (business) visits with the neighbouring countries. The largest deviation from the average of Luxembourg is caused by business travel as is shown in Figure 2-2. To find the direction of the tourism flows, WTO data will be used. 13

14 IWW/WTO, number of trips EU_ UK SE PT NL LU IT IE GR FR FI ES DK DE BE AT Holiday only Business only 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% Division of business and holiday as fraction of WTO total Figure 2-2: Comparing IWW TEN-STAC and WTO international tourism data (2000 for IWW and 2001 for WTO) for the IWW travel motives business and holiday. The numbers within the bars relate to the index of IWW/WTO data for that specific travel purpose (i.e. holiday or business) with respect to ALL WTO tourism (WTO=100). The coloured shares give an impression of the division of this error between the two IWW travel purposes. Generally this should be near the EU-15 average. IWW does not generate data for travels outside European countries to other continents. These data will also be generated with WTO databases. 2.4 Data processing and matching method To solve the issues given by Table 2-2 some statistical processing of the datasets available (TEN-STAC and WTO) has been done. This section describes what has been done to the main issues. A general problem with WTO data is the rather high number of missing data fields. These have been filled in with average figures using the TEN-STAC database and other data sources and checked with the WTO estimated totals. To combine the IWW/TEN-STAC and WTO data the following steps have been have taken: - The total number of tourists has been taken from the totals given by the WTO statistics per country for the EU-plus countries has; - The inequality of tourism flows (different numbers going from country A to country B as from country B to country A) haven been taken from WTO data; - The empty cells within the WTO data have been filled. The figures given by the IWW dataset have been taken as a base. These were divided by the number of IWW row partly-totals (for the number of departure ) and IWW column partly-totals (for the arrivals) and multiplied with the WTO totals in the same rows/columns. The term partly-totals refers to the IWW total excluding the cells where the WTO data are missing. - This has been filled by applying the ratio dom/int for outbound tourism for a country as found with the IWW data for the purpose holiday only to the totals of outbound international of the WTO data after filling the other empty cells. - The WTO data do not distinguish the tourism flows to the Canary Islands. These have been found using the share of Canary Isles arrivals of IWW data times the totals of arrivals to Spain and the share of departures and the totals of departures from Spain. The 14

15 resulting number of journeys has been subtracted from the totals for Spain to keep the total number of journeys constant. - The missing data for Malta within the IWW database have been found as follows. Inbound has been taken directly from WTO and have all been distributed to air transport only (some 3% comes by ferry according to WTO, 2003b). For departures the total of 200,000 per annum has been distributed over the destinations according to outbound (international) tourism distribution of Italy plus 20,000 on the line for Italy itself (to create an estimated share of some 30% of Malteser to travel to Italy as a destination). All travel by air again, though the number of maritime transport may be larger in this case. Distances from all EU-plus country main airports to Malta have been taken from times 1.1 detour factor. No information on domestic tourism on Malta is available, so this has been set to zero. - The missing data for Cyprus have been found in about the same way. Inbound has been taken directly from WTO and set to arrivals by air only (about 19% comes by ferry according to WTO, 2003b. As the distribution of these over the countries of origin is not known and the total Cyprian tourism flow is not a very large part of total EU-plus tourism, these have been all added to air transport). For departures the total of 589,000 per annum has been distributed over destinations according to the distribution of outbound (international) tourism from Greece. Some 5,000 tourists have been added at cell for GR (estimating some 30% of Cyprus inhabitants to travel to Greece as a destination). All air transport only again. Distances from all main international airports of the EU-plus countries to Cyprus have been taken from times a 1.1 detour factor. Some 737,000 bed-nights were taken by residents within Cyprus in 2001 (WTO, 2003b). Assuming average domestic LOS of about three nights this gives 246,000 domestic arrivals. All by added to the mode car. - The IWW average distances travelled per relation and transport mode between all EUplus countries will be used and multiplied with the number of tourists, to calculate the total distances travelled per transport mode. - Based on Eurostat data for the EU15 (Schmidt, 2002) the number of coach and ferry journeys have been taken as a share from road travel. For most EU10 countries the share of coach journeys has been based on Panorama of Transport data (Eurostat, 2003) on the distribution over rail and coach passenger kilometrage (pkm). For ferries these have been estimated based on the number of sea-ports available to the inhabitants of the country. Now the calculations have been all based on the number of journeys as given by the enriched and filled WTO table, but distributions over transport modes from the TEN-STAC data. Total passenger kilometrage (PKM) travelled has been obtained multiplying the average distances for every relation as found within TEN-STAC with the WTO-corrected TEN STAC data per mode on number of trips. The total emissions have been calculated by multiplying average emission factors per transport mode (see Annex VII) with the number of passenger kilometres travelled with that mode. 15

16 3 European tourism Key findings: - Domestic tourism arrivals take the largest share (62%) of EU-plus inbound tourism; intercontinental inbound tourism has 4% of the total number of trips and 12% of all international inbound tourism. - The main tourism flows are directed north-south within Europe, main destinations being France, Spain and Italy. - The ten new member states attract only a small amount of inbound European tourism, compared to the EU15 member states. - Most outbound tourism is generated by Northern and Western countries; only 15% of outbound tourism is intercontinental. - The European tourism industry generates directly about 5% of European GDP and labour; including indirect revenues this amounts to 12%. - For the EU-plus countries 90% of expenditure and 86% of receipts come from EU15 member states. 3.1 Europe as destination (domestic and inbound tourism) All data generated with the MuSTT model for the EU-plus countries is presented in Annex I. To set the scene: in 2000 all European countries attracted 393 million international tourists. This is about 57% of the world total of 687 million (WTO, 2003c). North America attracted only 84 million (11%) and Africa and Middle East both just 4%. However, these figures give a distorted view on the total tourism, because domestic tourism has been left out of the data and the number of international tourism is highly depending on the number of countries within a continent and the average size of these countries. In Europe there are many small countries, while Northern America has only two (US and Canada), significantly reducing international tourism for Northern America, while the total number of domestic travels will be much larger as in Europe. Figure 3-1: Major tourism flows within and to Europe in millions of arrivals per year for 2000 (source: Todd, 2003). 16

17 Figure 3-1 gives a rough overview of the main international tourism streams within, and to and from Europe. The graph makes clear most international tourism occurs within Europe at continental or smaller travel distances. Also it is evident the biggest tourism flows are from Northern European countries, with a cold and wet climate, to warmer southern European countries. Most tourists are seeking sun and sea. A total overview of the results for intra-eu-plus tourism flows is given in Annex I. From the data generated Figure 3-2 has been drawn. Also these maps make clear there is a general tourism stream from north-west to south within the EU-plus. tourism departures per country in 2001 (* million persons) > to to 20 5 to 10 0 to 5 tourism arrivals per country in 2001 (* million persons) > to to 20 5 to 10 0 to 5 OSLO STOCKHOLM HELSINKI TALLIN ST. PETERSBURG OSLO STOCKHOLM HELSINKI TALLIN ST. PETERSBURG RIGA RIGA GLASGOW KOEBENHAVN GLASGOW KOEBENHAVN BELFAST TYNESIDE VILNIUS BELFAST TYNESIDE VILNIUS DUBLIN LIVERPOOL HAMBURG BREMEN NOTTINGHAM WEST MIDLANDS BERLIN AMSTERDAM HANNOVER POZNAN WARSZAWA DEN HAAG LODZ BRISTOL LONDON DORTMUND ANTWERPEN LEIPZIG DUSSELDORF WROCLAW BRUXELLES LILLE FRANKFURT AM MAIN PRAHA KRAKOW LVIV LUXEMBOURG MINSK GOMEL KIYEV DUBLIN LIVERPOOL HAMBURG BREMEN NOTTINGHAM WEST MIDLANDS BERLIN AMSTERDAM HANNOVER POZNAN WARSZAWA DEN HAAG LODZ BRISTOL LONDON DORTMUND ANTWERPEN LEIPZIG DUSSELDORF WROCLAW BRUXELLES LILLE FRANKFURT AM MAIN PRAHA KRAKOW LVIV LUXEMBOURG MINSK GOMEL KIYEV PARIS STUTTGART PARIS STUTTGART MUENCHEN WIEN MUENCHEN WIEN ZUERICH BERN BUDAPEST KISHINEV ODESSA ZUERICH BERN BUDAPEST KISHINEV ODESSA LYON MILANO LJUBLJANA LYON MILANO LJUBLJANA BORDEAUX TOULOUSE GENOVA NICE FIRENZE MARSEILLE BEOGRAD BUCURESTI BORDEAUX TOULOUSE GENOVA NICE FIRENZE MARSEILLE BEOGRAD BUCURESTI SOFIYA SOFIYA ZARAGOZA BARCELONA MADRID ROMA NAPOLI SKOPJE TIRANA THESSALONIKI ISTANBUL ZARAGOZA BARCELONA MADRID ROMA NAPOLI SKOPJE TIRANA THESSALONIKI ISTANBUL VALENCIA VALENCIA LISBOA LISBOA SEVILLA PALERMO CATANIA ATHENS SEVILLA PALERMO CATANIA ATHENS Figure 3-2: Overview of number of outbound tourists (left) and inbound tourists (right) clearly showing the inequality in the tourism streams. Including domestic tourism for 2001 (source: MuSTT model). The data in Annex I show the total number of domestic tourism is about 68% of the total of domestic plus international (excluding inbound ICA tourism). Though the LOS for domestic tourism will be less than for international tourism, it appears domestic tourism is still more important in terms of number of tourists and number of nights as is international tourism. The example of Austria may proof the statement on LOS differences: from data by the Austrian statistical bureau it appears the average length of stay of residents is 3.5 days and of nonresidents 4.6 (Statistik Austria, 2003). With these data the share of domestic tourist nights would become 62%, still more than for international tourism. Intercontinental arrivals of non-europeans at EU15 destinations total to 37.1 million, according to WTO statistics for Figure 3-3 gives an overview of the region of origin for the EU15 destination countries. 17

18 Distribution of EU-plus inbound tourism 4% 2% 3% 2% Domestic EU15 27% EU+10 EU-plus 62% Other Europe ICA Figure 3-3: Distribution of arrivals within EU15 over the markets of origin of tourists for 2001 (data source MuSTT model plus WTO databases for other world regions). Figure 3-4 shows the main tourism flows are generated by the inhabitants of the EU15 countries. The EU10 and plus countries together deliver only 11% of total intra-eu-plus departures and arrivals. Also it becomes clear inbound and outbound flows are largely in equilibrium for all three EU regions considered. Number of tourist (thousands of journeys) Total number of arrivals and departures 900,0E+3 750,0E+3 Plus cntrs 600,0E+3 EU10 EU15 450,0E+3 300,0E+3 150,0E+3 000,0E+0 Arrivals Departures Plus cntrs EU EU Figure 3-4: Total number of arrivals and departures of tourists including domestic tourism for 2001 (source: MuSTT model). The international tourism with Europe as destination is dominated by Europeans with 88% (WTO, 2003d, pg. 45). Northern Europe attracts relatively many non-europeans (23%), Southern and Central/Eastern Europe only 6%, Eastern Mediterranean 12% and Western Europe 16%. 18

19 From the WTO Tourism Highlights (WTO, 2003c) it appears France, Spain, Italy and the Austria are the most popular destinations for international tourism (see Figure 3-5). 9,2% 1,8% 1,9% 2,0% 2,7% 3,1% 3,6% 4,2% 4,2% 4,5% 5,2% 5,8% Main destinations of the EU-plus 25,6% 13,8% 12,5% France Spain Italy Austria UK Germany Greece Portugal Netherlands Canary Isles Sweden Belgium Ireland Switserland Other Figure 3-5: Shares of the most important destinations of the EU-plus countries for 2001 (source: MuSTT model). Due to the large differences with respect to the size and population of these countries a different perspective is obtained when evaluating the tourism sector relative to the area or the population of the country (see Figure 3-6). In the case of arrivals per inhabitant Austria and Ireland end up high. In terms of arrivals per square kilometre it is Switzerland, The Netherlands, Belgium and again Austria at high scores. The first parameter (arrivals per inhabitant) is a measure for the economic importance of tourism to the country, while the second parameter, arrivals/km 2, give an impression of the environmental pressure of tourism. Relative performance of European Tourism destinations Austria Ireland Hungary Switzerland Greece Spain France Portugal Italy Belgium Netherlands United Kingdom Poland Germany Number of arrivals per km 2 or 1000 inhabitants Arrivals/km2 Arrivals / 1000 inhabitants Figure 3-6: Relative performance of the ten largest tourism destinations within Europe for 2001 (data source: WTO, 2003c). 19

20 The distribution over the three parts of the EU-plus countries is given by Figure 3-7. The EU member states clearly dominate the inbound and outbound tourism markets in number of trips. Inbound trips per region of EU-plus 6% 4% EU15 EU10 Plus cntrs 90% Figure 3-7: Shares of international inbound and outbound journeys (return trips) for the three regions of EU-plus for 2001 (source:mustt model). By definition tourism comprises several distinct purposes of the visit. In % of all international arrivals was for leisure, recreation and holidays, while 22% was business and professional and 24% visiting friends and relatives (WTO, 2003d, pg ). Interesting is the share of business and professional has been growing much faster as the other two between 1990 and 2000: from 14% to 22% share. Also visiting friends and relatives grew faster as leisure, recreation and holidays. Figure 3-8 has been drawn from data of WTO, 2003d. This figure shows how leisure related tourism dominates the Southern and Mediterranean markets, while Central/Eastern Europe receives 47% of VFR, health, religion and other. Business has the largest share in Northern Europe (Scandinavia, Ireland and UK). Number of international arrivals (%) 100% 80% 60% 40% 20% 0% Purpose of visit shares per European region Europe Northern Europe Western Europe Central/Eastern Europe Souther Europe East Mediterranean Europe Visting friends and relatives plus other Business and professional Leisure, recreation and holidays Figure 3-8: Shares of the purpose of visits per European region for 2001 (source:wto, 2003d). 20

21 The country of origin of inbound tourists to Europe is of importance to find the impacts of OD-transport required. Figure 3-9 shows 88% of tourists come from European countries (EUplus countries plus all other European countries). Of the intercontinental tourists the largest share is from the other European countries followed by the America s. Africa, Asia, Pacific, and the Middle-East generate only small amounts of tourists for the European market. Inbound tourism to Europe by world region of origin 2,4% 88,1% 11,9% 7,5% 1,5% 0,3% 0,2% EU-plus Other Europe Americas Asia and Pacific Africa Middle East Figure 3-9: Shares of inbound tourism to the EU-plus from the other world regions in 2001 by world region of origin (source: MuSTT model for EU-plus data and WTO, 2003d for the data on other world regions). 3.2 Europeans as tourists In 2000 European tourists (all European countries including countries like Russia) made a total of 422 million trips abroad (WTO, 2003d). This figure may be too high, as it seems some countries include outbound same-day visits into their outbound tourism statistics. Another WTO publication (WTO, 2003c) gives a lower total with 395 million in This same number results if the EU-plus figure is replaced with the MuSTT model result for outbound tourism of million outbound international tourists. Most international European tourists stay within Europe, though this share has been declining from 90% in 1990 to 86% in 2000 (WTO, 2003d). This development is also reflected by the historic average growth rates between 1990 and 2000: arrivals of European tourists at European destinations showed a growth rate of 3.7%, while ICA destinations averaged at double this rate (7.3%). Europeans stay much more at their own continent as do tourists from other world regions. The world average is 80%; compared to about 70% of tourists from the Americas and Africa. Two-thirds of European outbound tourists come from Western and Central/Eastern Europe 2 (see left graph of Figure 3-10). The total number of tourist is of course a function of the total population and the number of trips taken abroad. As can be seen from the right graph of Figure 3-10 the relative trips abroad are much higher for inhabitants of Northern Europe as for those from southern and eastern parts. 2 WTO warns for a problem with these statistics. It appears to be not allways clear if the figures reflect tourists, or include also same-day international visitors. This may be an explanation for the high numbers given for the eastern European countries. 21

22 37% Number of outbound trips per European region 9% 2% Northern Europe 20% 32% Western Europe Central/Eastern Europe Southern Europe East Mediterranean Europe Number of outbound trips (per 100 capita) Relative outbound tourism per European region Northern Europe Western Europe Central/Eastern Europe Southern Europe East Mediterranean Europe Figure 3-10: Left the number of outbound tourists per European region 2 and right the number of outbound trips per 100 cap 3 for (source: WTO, 2003d, pg. 53). The EU-plus region generated million international tourists (based on the MuSTT model). About 90% came from the EU15, 4% from the EU10 and the remainder from Norway, Switzerland, Bulgaria and Romania (see Figure 3-11). This means the new members may add some 4% to the total EU outbound tourism. Outbound trips by inhabitants of EU region 4% 6% EU15 EU10 Plus cntrs 90% Figure 3-11: Shares of number of outbound trips per EU region for 2001 (source: MuSTT model). Tourism from the new member states is dominated by Poland and the Czech Republic (together 64%; see Figure 3-12). However the numbers for the EU15 countries appear to be much larger. The largest source of outbound tourists is Germany with 74,4 million. The highest number of international tourism trips per 100 inhabitants is found for Switzerland (166), Sweden (139), Ireland (119) and Finland (111). 3 As many tourist travel more than once a year, a number over 100 does not mean all inhabitants are travelling as international outbound tourists. 22

23 13,2% 14,1% Distribution of outbound international tourism for the EU10 countries 4,5% 2,0% 1,0% 1,5% 20,9% 0,0% 0,0% 42,9% Poland Czech Republic Hungary Slovak Republic Lithunia Estonia Slovenia Cyprus Latvia Malta Figure 3-12: Distribution of outbound tourism for the EU10 countries in 2001 (source: MuSTT model). Reasons for the high rate of international tourist s travels from Northern and Western European countries compared to Southern European countries may be found in climate, average income and the ability to speak foreign languages (specifically English). However, with growing economy and ability of speaking English within the Southern European countries, these markets are likely to gain a larger share in the future. A last subject within this section on outbound tourism is about the number of trips outside EU-plus. Figure 3-13 gives an overview. The dominance of European destinations has already been showed. For the intercontinental visits the other European countries (non-euplus) and America s have the largest shares. Of the Americas the United States attract most Europeans. Outbound tourism from Europe by destination 2,3% 1,6% 88,1% 11,9% 1,1% 0,7% 6,2% EU-plus Other Europe Americas Asia and Pacific Africa Middle East Figure 3-13: Outbound tourism from EU-plus countries by world destination region for 2001 (source: MuSTT model for the EU-plus figures and WTO, 2003d for data on the other world regions). 3.3 Economy of tourism Tourism is often described as the largest economic sector of this moment. About 12% of the world GDP is connected to tourism and tourism creates some 100 million jobs world wide (OECD Working Party on National Environmental Policy, 2002). Ecotrans (ECOTRANS, 23